After a horrific and murderous weekend in NYC, Mayor Bloomberg, frustrated that folks determined on committing crimes are ignoring those magical incantations and spells enacted by local legislators, does what must necessarily follow in the mind of the statist: call the feds.

“We cannot tolerate it,” Bloomberg said while speaking at the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn. “There are just too many guns on the streets and we have to do something about it.”

New York has the toughest gun laws in the country, but Bloomberg said the city alone cannot stop the onslaught of shootings. “We need the federal government to step up,” he said.

The problem of crime is that it finds a way. And prohibitions are, at best, marginal; but they are totalitarian nonetheless and have no place in a free society. To try to control the means of the few by subjecting the entirety of society to the dictate of a despot is a symptom of desperation. After all, not every place experiences the same level of overall crime or the same numbers of crimes committed by firearms.

And then there is the elephant in the room. As Robert Wicks points out, “‘getting guns off the streets’ is just code for ‘getting poor urban minorities to disarm themselves.’” Indeed, NYC’s own government report on crime shows that minorities both commit and experience a higher percentage of crimes. Yet because most minorities are not criminals but potential victims, gun disarmament leaves minorities in a greater situation of peril. Of course, politicians do not understand economics or how incentives work so they would never think that ending drug (and gun) prohibition, welfare, taxes, zoning and licenses, rent control and compulsory education would radically lower crime across the board.

As for Bloomberg, his policies, and the policies of Albany, are–let’s face it–pretty much an epic fail. The last thing anyone needs is the federal government coming in to “fix” things.

Manuel Lora pointed me to this article on the “success” of last year’s Kicks for Guns campaign. Talk show hosts and various promoters of these programs love to talk about taking guns “off the streets,” as if a person who makes a living as a criminal, using a gun, would trade it in for a pair of shoes. As others have mentioned, these programs generally only result in a bunch of old, fairly useless guns being turned in in the first place. But I want to address the notions behind the rhetoric.

It seems apparent to me, based on the places where these events are staged, that “getting guns off the streets” is just code for “getting poor urban minorities to disarm themselves.” The main people who would turn in a functional gun in an inner city are 1) drug addicts who are just looking for something which can be converted into cash for drugs or traded directly for drugs and 2) people who try to avoid using guns. Obviously, people of type 2 are not much of a threat in terms of gun crime, but even 1) is really not a threat. A drug user who feels that a gun is better used as currency for drugs, rather than used as a tool for robbery, is exactly the kind of drug user who is no physical threat.

This is just an angle for the anti-gun lobby. Unfortunately, it is one which resonates with the “law and order” gun lobby. Black liberals have often accused conservatives of using racist “code” when addressing minority issues. “Getting guns off the street” is code embraced by liberals of all colors, and all-too-frequently resonates with conservatives as well.

While many people love to promote the various rights guaranteed by the Constitution, it is interesting to see how rights are restricted not through legislation or even an active judiciary, but simply by law enforcement not respecting them. Consider the right to keep and bear arms and this officer’s reaction to a man exercising his right. The Second Amendment has been upheld by the courts, and there have been recent landmark cases restoring that right to people unfortunate enough to live in places like Washington, D.C. Legal victories such at that have little effect on those supposedly hired to defend person and property, however:

Here is an example of how the mere presence of police officers is a defacto restriction on the exercise of rights. This could have easily turned into a deadly confrontation. If the officer had killed this man, it is unlikely, given what we have seen across the country, that he would have faced any criminal charges, even though his entire demeanor makes it unmistakably clear that this officer is just that: a hardened criminal.

This sort of behavior makes carrying a gun a much more dicey affair. Eventually, people may find that carrying a gun actually makes them less safe, as the likelihood of an encounter with the police becomes greater than an encounter with a private criminal in a growing police state. This is already the case with blacks, but as I have mentioned before, the rights we have in the face of the police is an example of equality in oppression, rather than equal freedoms. Perhaps in the future, the courts can go ahead and formalize the whole thing and say that we have no rights that the uniformed man is bound to respect.

Easily 99% of what American libertarians talk about is the demise of the country, with countless daily examples of new regulations, and the devastating results of those regulations. The US is, after all, in what to many appear to be an accelerating rate of decay compared to other countries around the world. The endless complaining and whining of the libertarian is not without merit–”our” federal government has for decades now been a worldwide aggressor. That said, there are a few aspects of American lifestyle that, in my opinion, are worth mentioning. These are things that I think are at least superior to that which exists elsewhere. In making this list I asked for comments by fellow TLS bloggers.

Full disclosure: for what it’s worth, personally, my only point of comparison is having lived half of my life in Perú and the other in the USA.

Of course, for each one of the points mentioned below there is some sort of state intervention that makes things more expensive or complicated. Still, there is something to be said about Americanism that is not all negative.

Affordable access to technology. Though things are improving in South America, import taxes are so high that it is not uncommon for people to travel to the US and bring back all kinds of electronics in their suitcase, pass them as their own, and then give them to buyers.

Can-do attitude. Everyday life is not a challenge. For the most part, people are cooperative, helpful, thankful and attentive. Special circumstances are not often resisted or met with disdain. In Perú, things are impossible, difficult, and take eons, but only because of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Speed of business. My cousin spent a year doing lab research in Italy. He noted that things got done “whenever” and nobody ever knew when an order would be fulfilled. Sure, there is a difference in culture. In my opinion, so long as things are done well, faster is better–it also makes you less poor.

Homeschooling. In large parts of Europe homeschooling is illegal or extremely regulated. Yes, there is always the black market, but there are huge risks involved (losing your kids or parenting rights, fines, jailtime, etc.). Homeschooling is legal in every state of the US, with some states giving homeschooling parents very favorable conditions (see a href=”http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp”>this map).

Entrepreneurship. Nobody blinks an eye upon being told, casually even, that the person conversing with them owns a business or two or three. The idea of starting a business, even a tiny, one-person operation, is not special.

When working on this post I received the following comment (edited for bloggability) from Anthony Gregory:

Music — jazz, country, blues and rock, all ours. Film — we invented it and still dominate. Literature — some of the best stuff written in English. Food — lots of stuff was developed and created here. Culture — we kick ass in everything from clothing to modern art. Political philosophy — we said goodbye to empire, ushering in two centuries of global liberalization. Modern libertarianism — our people invented the freaking thing. I love America as much as anyone in this country, goddamn it. I will defend America until I’m blue in the face.

Let’s continue.

Optimism. “Americans are uniquely (and, to foreigners, obnoxiously) optimistic. Pessimism is the order of the day elsewhere, but not here.” ~Akiva

Service. Granted, this one varies widely, but in my experience, in the US those in the service industry are either happy to see you, or, most likely, pretend to be. That’s fine, because in other countries, you are sadly more than often treated as a burden. Yes, customers treated like a burden who ruin a clerk’s otherwise completely idle day.

Drive-thrus. A convenient, time saver. No need to get out of your car and walk in the cold or in the heat. Once, years ago, my wife and met a German exchange student. He said that in his country, drive-thrus were seen as inhuman and were not popular. I just rolled my eyes and thought “FAIL” at such a comment. Do they have stoves in Germany or cars?

Charity. Personal and corporate charitable donations, foundations, scholarships, memorial funds abound. Americans tend to rank near the top when it comes to non-profit financial support.

24/7 places. Some years ago Gabriel Calzada (founder of the Instituto Juan de Mariana) and I were walking around Manhattan. He still got a kick out of seeing businesses actually opened on Sundays, as well as businesses running 24/7. In Spain, he told me, some businesses are prohibited from opening on Sundays, supposedly for protectionist reasons (big stores vs. small stores).

Guns. Though a few states have it almost as bad as Europe, in most of the US you can go buy a firearm in minutes from a store; in most states you can also (legally) buy one from a private seller with no government notice, permit or registry. And in a handful of states you can take a handgun and carry it concealed without a permit.

Classlessness. In developing countries, where income mobility is not high, a de facto class system has therefore been established. In Perú, for example, it is common–indeed expected–for the poor to not generally approach or talk to the non-poor unless they are begging for money or asking for business. For the upper middle class and above, it is just not usual, and sometimes even frowned upon, for the “privileged” to mingle, chat or engage in random conversation at a checkout lane, with the lower classes. In the US there can be a bit of this, but it is nowhere near as pronounced. Most folks have no problem interacting with any other person regardless of their position in life or income. Americans greet, and shake hands, with anyone else, and tend to respect the other person for their accomplishments and work. There are even linguistic examples of “classiness.” If you are upper middle class, it is expected for you to use the informal version of you (tu) when speaking with someone of a “lower” class, whereas the “plebes” are expected to use the formal you (usted) when addressing their “betters.”

Fellow TLS blogger Akiva shares the following comment regarding American optimism and individualism:

On the first day of B-school, they had an expert on international culture who consults with major companies come and give us some behavior and attitudes test and then explain the outcome. The bottom line is that Americans are *extreme* outliers. American culture is unique. Despite all the crap that has happened, Americans are as culturally exceptional as they were in de Tocqueville’s day.

They reject fate and believe in in the power of individual choice. American celebrate mavericks; they’d never say, “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down”. On a very fundamental level, Americans value others as free individuals and expect those around them to do the same. There is no deference to authority, experience, or seniority, Americans expect people to justify themselves by their words and deeds, not because of who they are. Individualism and freedom are not political ideas here, they are cultural values, to the point that even the enemies of freedom must pay lip service to them.

Americans believe in the rule of law with almost religious fervor. That the state has to justify not only every exercise of power but even its very existence, is a uniquely American attitude. When Americans say that the state “can’t” do something they don’t mean it as a procedural formality, but as a statement of metaphysical reality.

America succeed b/c of the people and despite the government. Everywhere else seems to have *needed* political leadership to get anything done, but Americans by and large just take care of business. Politics is not a field that attracts the best and brightest, America doesn’t produce great statesman, but that’s b/c its best people have
better things to do. Politicians may talk of taxing the rich, but even on the left, very few would begrudge Gates, Dell, or others who made their fortunes with “honest” work.

In short, what is good about America is everything that riles the Europeans, offends those from the Far East, and mystifies everyone else.

To this list I can probably add tolerance and heterogeneity. Unlike places where there is significant pressure to never deviate from “standard” behavior, in the US people do not care too much if individuals or families do things that are not “the norm.” There are numerous “private holidays” and events and activities of all kinds. These exist all over the world, but in my opinion (again, drawing from my Peruvian experience) folks who deviate from what is standard are easily categorized as weird or outcasts, even if their interests are not, for international standards, extravagant or radically unusual.

For the “average” Austro-anarcho-libertarian, the US is free-fall, with totalitarianism around the corner. But there is also plenty of good.

How else could one explain this?

A 7-year-old child allegedly shot a Nerf-style toy gun in his Hammonton, N.J., school Jan. 18. No one was hurt, but the pint-size softshooter now faces misdemeanor criminal charges.

Dr. Dan Blachford, the Hammonton Board of Education superintendent, said the school has a zero tolerance policy.

“We are just very vigilant and we feel that if we draw a very strict line then we have much less worry about someone bringing in something dangerous,” said Blachford.

I bet “school boards” also have zero tolerance even against non-mainstream views (that is, against any view that dares to criticize the establishment’s views on everything, especially on the state).

* but surely not the guns of the state, that is. That’s the jive I get from RFK’s daughter’s comments on further limiting gun freedom:

Townsend said she believes the Justice Department and “this country have got to do a better job on gun regulation and on gun control and making our citizens safe.”

“As my father said, we glorify killing on movies and on television screens and call it entertainment,” she said. “We make it easy for men of all shades and sanity to acquire weapons, and violence breeds violence. Repression brings retaliation, and only a cleaning of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul.”

Repression brings retaliation? Gosh, sounds also like an argument against foreign invasions and wars and the imposition of various kinds of legislation on other countries. If we want to be coherent about banning guns, should we not start with the military?

(Cross-posted on LRC.)

“A debate on ESPN about Kobe being in that “Call of Duty: Black Ops” commercial, holding a rifle, convinced me of two things…” ~ First Tweet

“…One, ESPN has a lot of retarded debates about issues that are less than important.” ~ Second Tweet

“…Two, I watch too much ESPN.” ~ Third Tweet

My previous blog rant about a sports figure—regarding the LeBron Decision and the wrath it wrought—opened with this line, “I have an admission to make…” Here we go again.

I have another admission to make, this time about the Tweets I posted, as shown above.  I was wrong about ESPN.  They don’t debate about issues that are less than important, well, not in the way I originally opined.  (That those debates remain somewhat retarded is not similarly incorrect.)  This issue is not only important, but also emblematic of and intertwined with many other issues.  In fact, it dawned on me as I watched a panel discussion on “Outside the Lines: First Report,” that the Kobe-holding-a-rifle-in-a-commercial issue is both important and confusing.  By the way, the coverage, particularly on Yahoo, is worth checking out.

This issue is—these issues are—important because the discussion of black men—particularly prominent black men—and weapons, is tied up in the same psychological murkiness that I attempted to clarify via the lens of racist gun control.  The issue is confusing because any discussion seems to meander through any number of sub-issues, some germane and some peripheral, at best.  (As an aside, my third admission via Tweet, that I watch too much ESPN, is hardly worth debating.  It is what it is.)

That professional sports are fraught with racist collectivism is far from a discovery.  Furthermore, these issues are not new, which is probably why they tend to recur.  Given the exorbitant coverage of celebrity in the MSM, any time a prominent black man makes news, it presents an excellent opportunity to drive viewership.  Paraphrasing the old quote from It’s a Wonderful Life about angels and ringing bells, every time a high-profile black man does anything even remotely newsworthy, a budding TV producer gets his wings.

My own view is that the enchantment with these issues—and their presentation via sports television—is indicative of more than a sports-centric misinterpretation of value.  Plaxico Burris is in jail in some measure because he is a high-profile black athlete.  I might argue that Mike Vick went to jail for much the same reasons.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but “uppity Negros” have been getting whipped in America for about as long as there has been an America.  (I know.  I know.  Again, that’s unfair.)  Ergo, figuratively whipping them via the court of ostensible public opinion via sports entertainment is a tried-and-true strategy.

The Issues:  Separated, Exposed, Filleted, and Glazed

There are several issues that must be separated before one can even begin to have a meaningful debate about what I’ll call from this point forward, “The Kobe Commercial.”  First, do violent video games promote violence?  Second, is Kobe trying to promote violence by appearing in a commercial for a violent video game?  Third, is Kobe breaking a contract—moral, ethical, implied, or specific, by appearing in a commercial for a violent video game?  Forth, does Kobe have a responsibility, as a public figure and ostensive role model, to exclude himself from any activity that might be construed as unseemly?  Fifth, is Kobe somehow glorifying war at a time when America is engaged in a real war?  Bonus question:  Even if Kobe does not have a personal responsibility, can his employer, the National Basketball Association, treat him as if he had such a responsibility and impose sanctions upon him as a result?

Let’s address the easy answers first.

Violent video games do not lead to more violence in society.  The two academics on ESPN’s Outside the Lines episode confirmed this, and no one should find it surprising, despite the hype that tenuous links between gaming and episodes like Columbine appear to have.  (As an aside, the book, “Killing Monsters” which I own, but have not yet completed, provides similar evidence.)  Simply put, vicarious violence is not real violence and might even provide an outlet for violent tendencies.  Society might be less violent because people can express violent tendencies via fantasy.

Even if video games made people more violent, the issues are separate. Appropriate penalties for violent behavior are available regardless of its genesis.  Kobe is, and should be, free to play and advertise any game he likes, whether he enjoys playing it, as is the case with Black Ops, or not. Moral busybody-ism does not a restriction on the activities of Kobe Bryant provide.

Is Kobe promoting violence?  Again, no.  Given the fact that violent video games don’t make people violent anyway, no other conclusion is reasonable.  Kobe is not killing anyone in real life.  He is promoting a video game that he plays and enjoys.  Any discussion of promotion beyond that is utterly ridiculous, bordering on insane.

Contracts:  Implied and Otherwise

Has Kobe broken a contract with his employer?  Similar to the first two cases, no.  Now, as anyone who watches the goings-on which emanate from (NFL commissioner) Roger Goodell’s echo chamber can attest, it does seems possible for the commissioner of a major sport to take almost any action against one of his employees under the color of “conduct detrimental to the league” by imposing sanctions despite a lack of evidence, civil or criminal charges, or frankly, anything else.  As such, and as ESPN’s Skip Bayless implied, (NBA commissioner) David Stern could still sanction Kobe, although it is not clear that the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement allows Stern the kind of wide latitude as is afforded Goodell.  (For those keeping score at home, this is the answer to the bonus question above.)  If Stern does sanction Kobe, don’t get it twisted:  He’ll be trying to protect his league and its profits, not making a statement about morality.

Does Kobe have an implied contract with “his fans” regarding such behavior?  Once again, the answer is no, but this time for different reasons than previously.  The game he is promoting is and was enjoying record sales volume.  As such, one could actually conclude that Kobe is responding to the actions already taken by the public.  Kobe is promoting something that many, if not most, of his fans already like.  He’s closer to bandwagon jumping than setting a trend!  Kobe’s appearance in the ad is cool because the game is popular.  The video game is not popular because Kobe is cool.  (For the record, I don’t play Black Ops, or any other video game for that matter, but I admit to thinking Kobe Bryant has been cool for a while.)

Glorifying War—Precluding Peace?

Does The Kobe Commercial glorify war?  It is on this question that this debate gets interesting.  Skip Oliva provided the best summation of my feelings when he responded to my Tweet with one of his own:

Funny how the media usually gets more outraged over depictions of violence then [sic], oh, actual violence caused by government.

Exactly.

In fact, it was at the points where panel members tried to suggest that the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were so sacred as to necessarily preclude violent video games that I nearly lost my lunch.  Come again?  If all the war on Earth was contained in X-Boxes across the U.S., I wouldn’t care one bit, and I bet there would be more than a few dead Iraqi civilians who’d still be alive.  If one wants to get high-and-mighty with disgust over violence, better to do so with regard to legitimate violence like predator drones killing unarmed people.  The fact that Kobe Bryant smiles in a fake-assed video game presentation has no effect on that, one way or the other.

I do not doubt, for a single minute, that the types of violence that Todd Walker fights, particularly among young black men, is a plague on the Inner City.  In full disclosure, I do wonder if that violence is not a result of the massive disarmament of law-abiding black people, that is, too much gun control versus too little.  I also do not doubt that violence, even make-believe violence, is not everyone’s “cup of tea.”  I already noted that I don’t play any first-person shooter games and, from a personal standpoint, find them somewhat distasteful.  Value is subjective, though.  And since we know that these games don’t cause violence, decrying Kobe’s involvement in advertising one that is already selling like hotcakes seems horribly misplaced.

Dan Devine, in the interesting piece from Yahoo (linked above), provides an educational bit of context:

…the backlash got some fresh legs when tech scribe Sam Machkovech wrote at TheAtlantic.com that the “troubling melange of gun, grenade, and rocket combat acted out by blue-collar workers, children, and celebs like Kobe Bryant and Jimmy Kimmel” was a major disappointment that “comes closer to selling real death than any video game possibly could.”

In fairness, Devine notes that the whining subsided as quickly as it started.  But the sentence above still troubles me.  Somehow, so the apparent narrative goes, Kobe acting out in a video game sells real death better than 750 military bases around the globe, better than sanctions that killed half a million children, better than state-sponsored anti-drug violence, and better than thugs in special uniforms killing whomever they like.  I find it ironic, if depressingly typical, that people generally, but the media specifically, as Oliva so pointedly notes, loudly decry that which does not lead to violence while simultaneously remaining largely silent over, or at least puzzlingly acquiescent of, that which is a startling example of it.

Cross-Posted at the LRCBlog.

I’ve commended the work of libertarian rapper Neema V before (see Fantastic Libertarian Rapper: Neema V; More Peace Music: White Flag Warrior). He’s now working on an independent film, “Guns and Weed: The Road to Freedom”–the trailer is below.

Last week, an AK-47-wielding student caused a major scare on the UT-Austin campus. He ultimately killed himself in the library. Fortunately, no one else was hurt. That same day, the Libertarian Longhorns and UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus were scheduled to host John Lott, famed author of More Guns, Less Crime, to speak about his research showing that government restrictions upon firearms are counterproductive.

Thanks to Rob Love of Texans for Accountable Government, we have video of the event. It has officially been posted on Youtube, and we hope you will assist us in making this go viral. We need people to understand the gravity of this kind of restriction upon our individual property rights. It’s not just about students needing to protect themselves, it’s about grasping the limits of government power.

Here’s the Youtube playlist, I know it’s a long series (8 parts!) but at least try to catch some of it. Know the facts!

On the morning of Tuesday, September 28, the University of Texas community was alerted to the terrifying situation of a gunman on campus. Students, staff, and faculty were told via text messages, emails, sirens, and various forms of social media to shelter in place and await evacuation.

It was reported that the gunman, later identified as UT student Colton Tooley was armed and seen walking down 21^st street, shooting his weapon into the air and ground while yelling and screaming. He then entered into the Perry-Casteneda Library and proceeded up to the sixth floor where he ultimately took his own life. Fortunately, no one else was injured in the process, and it appears that the Tooley had no intention of hurting anyone but himself.

Coincidentally, the Libertarian Longhorns and UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus had invited Dr. John Lott, famed writer of the book More Guns, Less Crime, to speak on campus that same day. The date had been set since early this past summer, but the campus shooting obviously put Dr. Lott’s talk in jeopardy. However, the organization’s student leaders decided that, out of respect for the speaker who had traveled all the way from Maryland and the importance of the issues at hand, the event should not be canceled.

The two student organizations quickly reorganized the event. Local bookstore Brave New Books generously agreed to host the talk and extended their normal business hours to accommodate. The Libertarian Party of Texas assisted students notifying media outlets and local groups that the event would continue at the new location.

The result was nothing short of phenomenal. At least 125 students and Austinites crammed into Brave New Books to hear John Lott speak about his research on the effects of gun control laws on violent crime. Television, radio, and newspaper outlets from Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas interviewed people and recorded footage of the event. Their response to the presentation was very positive.

UT students Jeff Shi, Kory Zipperer, Justo Montoya, Jose Nino, and Andy Fernandez were interviewed on Austin area news stations and quoted in newspapers across Texas. More news coverage will certainly be released in the coming days.

Despite the sensitive nature of the issue, the Libertarian Longhorns and UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus acted in a professional manner and provided a solution in a difficult time for the UT campus and Austin community. Their actions are consistent with their firm belief that by educating the community these volatile situations may be reduced.

Media Coverage to date:

• The Austin-American Statesman
• KVUE Local ABC
• The Daily Texan
• KXAN Local NBC

Andy Fernandez is a leader of the Libertarian Longhorns at UT-Austin and an SFL Campus Coordinator. Originally posted on the Students for Liberty Blog.